DAMAGE is now the main criteria for 10-8 rounds

If this isnt an official change this is pointless
 
Here's where me and you differ.
The person attempting the TD dictated the place and position not the person defending.

The person who attempted forced the person defending to defend. He forced the other person to step backwards, dropped his hip, move laterally, stop throwing a strike mid throw to dodge, etc.

Getting the TD isn't the end all. The person attempting the TD dislodged the person defending from whatever original position they were really in.

Example
2 fighters are the center of the cage. 1 fighter wants the better the other person to deny the other fighter the center. So one fighter shoots for a TD and while doesn't get the TD he achieved his goal moving/dislodging the other fighter out of the center. The other fighter wants the center end can't get the center because hes too just defending TD to implement the type of fight he wants.

Or fighter wants the fight up against the fence so they attempt an unsuccessful ankle pick that doesn't land but pushes his opponent into the fence where he now is in a more advantageous position.

A person denying another person's attempts to take them down is not the same as that person implementing their offense or game plan or strategy.

You think WB wants to spend all fight defending TD? Or Izzy?

By definition I don't think defense can be effective because it's your opponent who is dictating your actions.

The person defending the takedown is denying the attacker of what he wants to do, and is shutting them down - completely. They are dictating the place and positioning of the fight by not allowing the other guy to dictate the place and positioning. The guy attempting takedowns is trying to get the fight to the ground, the one denying him the takedown wants to keep it standing, is the one who is successful, and the one who is more effective in the grappling. Failed takedowns are not successful or effective, nor are they even considered aggressiveness in the unified rules. Successful and effective defense is still successful and effective. Failed and ineffective attempts at anything is failing to be effective. Period.
 
Last edited:
The person defending the takedown is denying the attacker of what he wants to do, and is shutting them down - completely. They are dictating the place and positioning of the fight by not allowing the other guy to dictate the place and positioning. The guy attempting takedowns is trying to get the fight to the ground, the one denying him the takedown wants to keep it standing, is the one who is successful, and the one who is more effective in the grappling. Failed takedowns are not successful or effective, nor are they even considered aggressiveness in the unified rules. Successful and effective defense is still successful and effective. Failed and ineffective attempts at anything is failing to be effective. Period.
I wouldn't enjoy MMA under your interpretation of the rules. It would reward defensive minded fighters too much and fighters would have mor incentive to fight not to lose rather than fight to win. Instead of imposing your will on your opponent we'd reward fighters that just deny opponents of what they want to do. We'd have guys staring at each other saying "you go first" because the reaction would be weighed more than the action that forced the reaction. Always better to be second mentality.

Like if you were fighting Khabib all you would have to do is not get taken down to win. "I denied Khabib so his TD attempts we basically landed the same amount of strikes. Never mind I had absolutely no offense of my own all at."

Yeah as a judge I'd always credit the guy attempting the TD more than the guy defending. We have different definitions of effective grappling.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't enjoy MMA under your interpretation of the rules. It would reward defensive minded fighters too much and fighters would have mor incentive to fight not to lose rather than fight to win. Instead of imposing your will on your opponent we'd reward fighters that just deny opponents of what they want to do. We'd have guys staring at each other saying "you go first" because the reaction would be weighed more than the action that forced the reaction. Always better to be second mentality.

Like if you were fighting Khabib all you would have to do is not get taken down to win. "I denied Khabib so his TD attempts we basically landed the same amount of strikes. Never mind I had absolutely no offense of my own all at."

Yeah as a judge I'd always credit the guy attempting the TD more than the guy defending. We have different definitions of effective grappling.

So, you still insist that failing 100% is more effective than denying someone 100%?
 
What do you score Woodley vs WB round 1 where Woodley catches a WB kick, takes him down, lands over 40 strikes and keep him in his back basically the whole round? Officially strike count was 48-2 in Woodley's favor.

I don't remember anyone calling that a 10-8. That was pretty universal 10-9. Round 4 in that fight was the 10-8 round for Woodley.
10-9 my example had 2 sub attempts and was 49 strikes to zero while Forrest also had a better position on top against Rampage than Woodley had vs WB.

Forrest had far more grappling dominance over Rampage than Woodley had over WB.
 
I listened to the Sheehan show (see Sherdog FP). He was explaining that damage is now the main criteria in judging to get a 10-8 round. He said before that control or striking volume COULD get you a 10-8 but now those really won't be factors.

So of you take a guy down and control him for an entire round but don't damage your opponent you're getting a 10-9.

For the pillow fisted pitter patters that touch their opponents way 70 times in a round and their opponents don't do much to them they are getting a 10-9 (a Colby vs Robbie situation imo).

Damage AKA hurting your opponent is the main criteria.

I agree. I like it. The point is to hurt your opponent so much they can't continue and the fight doesn't go to the judges.

How does everyone else feel?
More 10-8 rounds would be great but what I really want is more 10-10 rounds.

It's hard to judge if a dominant round deserves a 10-8 or just a 10-9 but rounds where fighters just throw feints and feel each other out for 5 min are OBVIOUS 10-10s. It's infuriating to see those decide the outcome so many times!!!

Best example of this is the Machida-Page robbery. Almost zero action in rounds 1 and 2, then a clear round for Machida. Should have been 30-29 Machida but Page won instead.
 
Damage has for a very long time been the number one criteria just that it hasn’t been openly stated as MMA has struggled in credibility/not being compared to human cockfighting. BMJ has spoken about this a couple of years ago. So this is literally old news, fights have pretty much always been determined on damage first followed by grappling, control etc. just like it should.
 
More 10-8 rounds would be great but what I really want is more 10-10 rounds.

It's hard to judge if a dominant round deserves a 10-8 or just a 10-9 but rounds where fighters just throw feints and feel each other out for 5 min are OBVIOUS 10-10s. It's infuriating to see those decide the outcome so many times!!!

Best example of this is the Machida-Page robbery. Almost zero action in rounds 1 and 2, then a clear round for Machida. Should have been 30-29 Machida but Page won instead.
I hate 10-10 rounds. Just lazy judging to me.

Page won because he was moving forward and Machida was constantly backing up.
 
I hate 10-10 rounds. Just lazy judging to me.

Page won because he was moving forward and Machida was constantly backing up.
moving forward and hitting air
Machida had the only significant offense in that fight, all in rnd 3.
 
moving forward and hitting air
Machida had the only significant offense in that fight, all in rnd 3.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, if you're a primary counterstriker based around a lot of footwork and movement expect to lose a decision if you didn't KOv your opponent and seriously damage him in the process.

Fighting while going backwards isn't a good look.
 
Damage is so subjective.. . Not sure how I feel about it

This.

Bj penn and gsp as an example. GSP could swat a fly off his cheek and look bruised up, while Bj could split a bundle of firewood with his face and look like he was just blushing slightly.

Does damage mean bruising/welts
Even if we take staggers/knockdowns as damage, that isn't exactly fair either. We've seen fighters take hellacious 1 sided beatings beatings without being knocked down - are those guys better than technically superior fighters without rock solid chins who get knocked down a bit easier?
 
I listened to the Sheehan show (see Sherdog FP). He was explaining that damage is now the main criteria in judging to get a 10-8 round. He said before that control or striking volume COULD get you a 10-8 but now those really won't be factors.

So of you take a guy down and control him for an entire round but don't damage your opponent you're getting a 10-9.

For the pillow fisted pitter patters that touch their opponents way 70 times in a round and their opponents don't do much to them they are getting a 10-9 (a Colby vs Robbie situation imo).

Damage AKA hurting your opponent is the main criteria.

I agree. I like it. The point is to hurt your opponent so much they can't continue and the fight doesn't go to the judges.

How does everyone else feel?
It's been said, the criteria is never the issue. The judges will take whatever criteria you put in front of them, shove it up their asses, sniff their fingers, and fuck it up either way.
 
I listened to the Sheehan show (see Sherdog FP). He was explaining that damage is now the main criteria in judging to get a 10-8 round. He said before that control or striking volume COULD get you a 10-8 but now those really won't be factors.

So of you take a guy down and control him for an entire round but don't damage your opponent you're getting a 10-9.

For the pillow fisted pitter patters that touch their opponents way 70 times in a round and their opponents don't do much to them they are getting a 10-9 (a Colby vs Robbie situation imo).

Damage AKA hurting your opponent is the main criteria.

I agree. I like it. The point is to hurt your opponent so much they can't continue and the fight doesn't go to the judges.

How does everyone else feel?
Makes sense
 
I listened to the Sheehan show (see Sherdog FP). He was explaining that damage is now the main criteria in judging to get a 10-8 round. He said before that control or striking volume COULD get you a 10-8 but now those really won't be factors.

So of you take a guy down and control him for an entire round but don't damage your opponent you're getting a 10-9.

For the pillow fisted pitter patters that touch their opponents way 70 times in a round and their opponents don't do much to them they are getting a 10-9 (a Colby vs Robbie situation imo).

Damage AKA hurting your opponent is the main criteria.

I agree. I like it. The point is to hurt your opponent so much they can't continue and the fight doesn't go to the judges.

How does everyone else feel?

Sounds reasonable. If you outstrike or outgrapple your apanyent without doing damage you win the round. But to get a one point lead on top you need to really hurt your apanyent.

Of course a bunch of weirdos here are going to start arguing that we need 10-7s, 10,6s, etc.
 
I've said it before and I'll say it again, if you're a primary counterstriker based around a lot of footwork and movement expect to lose a decision if you didn't KOv your opponent and seriously damage him in the process.

Fighting while going backwards isn't a good look.
I dunno man, it works in boxing. ;)
 
I've said it before and I'll say it again, if you're a primary counterstriker based around a lot of footwork and movement expect to lose a decision if you didn't KOv your opponent and seriously damage him in the process.

Fighting while going backwards isn't a good look.
That's stupid, it looks fine. The other guy shouldn't win just because you're going backwards if he can't actually do anything going forwards
 
That's stupid, it looks fine. The other guy shouldn't win just because you're going backwards if he can't actually do anything going forwards
In the fight I was talking about both guys did nothing for 2 rounds so the rounds went to the guy who was moving forward rather than backwards.

The issue is the fighter who was backing up the first 2 rounds clearly won the 3rd round but lost due to already being down 2 rounds.
 
Back
Top